Double standards in society?(offtopic discussion earlier thr

Post Reply New Topic

Its ok sugar, you already had your thoughts about me made. I bet they involved chocolate and whipped cream.

I'm not saying anything about how hard dating is for women because that's not my point.
My point, which I expressed, is that it's a relatively small grievance in the grand scheme and that calling "sexism" on difficulty in dating for that reason is a little silly.
Beyond that. I don't really care.
People can feel free to take me with as little seriousness, sugar, or cream as they like. But it's not cool to express that disrespect in such a stereo-typically sexist way. Which is what I objected to.

It's not "cool" to derail a thread that you have no intention of contributing anything of value to either, some of us are genuinely interested in this discussion. I don't view reproduction and romantic relationships as a small thing, to quite a lot of people its the meaning of life.

Now, men are expected to be the active part in the approach and initiation phase of a relationship, IE societies standards dictate that men take this role, this may just be silly little me being a man, but last time I checked "sexism" is more or less defined as

"Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."

If men are expected to behave a certain way in the sphere of love and dating and are penalized for not doing so, that is clear discrimination based on gender.

if i was a zombie, id eat you for having a brain

I don't see how she was derailing this thread

Because her post was off-topic, did not contribute to the discussion and was completely and utterly without value, as were her last 4 or 5 posts in the thread. Keep in mind that I view this post by you and most likely your reply to me in a similar fashion.

Is there any woman who would be so kind as to enlighten the cretins representing the male gender in this thread with an actual argument in regards to the work women have to do in the approach and initiation phases of a relationship from a female perspective?

This seems like a terrible way to get women to feel more comfortable with that role.

I have to allow almost any thread provided that members arent attacking each other.
If I was to lock/remove this thread several members would be complaining about how its an example of the sexism on here and they are not allowed to have a healthy discussion about their own problems.

If people are getting tired of this thread they are more than free to leave it

I see your point.
I posted enough snippets from a paper that effectively explained L&D but not one member has yet bothered to reply or support it, but prefer to argue instead. Oh well.

No. You cannot quantify who "has it harder."



So far, no one's provided any "sources." When someone actually does provide "sources," (and, in this sense, "sources" are defined as empirical, falsifiable, peer-reviewed data that can demonstrate the objective existence of dating "hardship" as experienced by each individual based on nothing but genitalia), then I'll respond in kind.



This is your personal view of "dating" and how you choose to frame it. It's philosophy, not "fact."

You can wax philosophical all you want too about your anecdotal personal experiences all you like, but doesn't hold any value beyond "opinions." I can sit here and write feminist rants about how "dating" is skewed in favor of the patriarchy and how women are victimized by The System, and I bet I can even find a bunch of college professors and personal blogs to support me, but it's still just pseudo-philosophical bull.

Of course I can, your limitations do not apply to me. If someone has to engage in an active action, whereas another person can remain passive, the the person who had to expend actual calories through doing something actively has it harder.

If one actor in a scenario has all the power, whereas the other person has none, then the person with no power has it harder.

If one actor carries the majority of the downside risk, and bears the majority of the cost, then that actor obviously has it harder than the one who receives the benefits and carries no real risk.

We can quantify it in terms of calorie expenditure, we can quantify it in the form of psychological/physical stress, in terms of expected behavior. We can even quantify it in terms of economics, IE who carries the cost and who has the biggest downside risk.

*Note*
Did anyone notice that Xfilesgeek didn't counter the argument with argumentation but with a statement with no backing what so ever? If you believe that it cannot be quantified, argue it rather than state a conclusion with nothing leading up to it. I actually make an argumentation to support my statement following it.



This is not my personal view of dating, this is the view most evolutionary biologists, psychologists and body language experts subscribe to. Even the post that linked the economics of dating supported my point of view. The only thing that supports your point of view is your self-referencing and your source demand from earlier proves that your point of view and your position is unreasonable, unintelligent and illogical.

You can post all the feminist s**t you want and I'll be happy to nail you up on the cross where I already put Valentine and Hyperlexican.

You're the same hypocrite, you require a level of source material that nobody can ever meet, while not supplying anything near the quality you require for others yourself, Discussing with you is a waste of my time.

Because even if I were to post multiple sources that fit according to your criteria you would raise the bar (logical fallacy) and claim that your point of view was not disproved.

Let me put it to you like this, on average across our world, men pay for dates, so right there is a financial cost that has to be covered by something a woman does. However, if you say she does this by sex, you just called all women prostitutes, if you say she does this by offering the man her company, you just called all women "companions".

Now, in your next post, I require you as the person who made the initial assertion, provide me with a peer-reviewed study, published in a major respected medium, covering every single individual in the world which can be falsified to support your point of view.

Given that your opinion is based on a study that doesn't exist, you have to disqualify your own point of view in this discussion and leave, or lower your source requirements to a point where they can be met. You pick. Keep in mind that if you post similar drivel as the post I'm replying to now again, I'll pick it apart and I won't be as nice about it.

You cannot quantify "who has it harder."

Who "has it harder" s not an objective quality that can be measured, nor can you account for the subjective experience of every individual based on nothing but a set of arbitrary biological characteristics.

You have made a series of assertions backed by a series of assertions. You need to support your assertions with actual evidence, not more assertions.



Precisely.



No, it isn't.



I didn't make the "initial assertion."

Please provide scientific, peer-reviewed, falsifiable evidence that men "have it harder/do all the work" and that "harder" is something that can be objectively measured.

Thanks.

I already did, A Harvard paper on Sexual Economics, which if I were to copy all seventy odd pages would also give a logical explaination to rape, prostituition, divorce, the value of female virginity etc...

please reply countering this theory with references...

As I said, you need to provide evidence for your assertions made in the OP. There have been several examples with evidence, but you have set the bar so high that nobody can prove your OPINION as false regardless of what facts they bring because you require excessive sources.

If I posted peer reviewed studies, by economists, sociologists, psychologists and biologists, you'd still disqualify them because they do not take every single individual into account. "Who has it harder, men or women" does not need each individual, it needs data for each gender.

For men, we have the fact that men tend to pay more on dates, they have to make the initial approach in most cases, men have to actively qualify themselves to women, and so on. You have posted exactly 0 things a woman has to do, so based on the prementioned aspects, men as a gender do have a harder task, because they actually have to do something, whereas according to your posts, women have to literally do nothing.

You have made 0 arguments, so you lose.

The original assertion in the OP was that "men have it harder."



When you make a wide, overly-broad generalization, you cannot support it precisely because it is a wide, overly-broad generalization. The solution to this is to not make wide, overly-broad generalizations.



When you include each individual in your statement, you need to include each individual.

And you still have not even attempted to explain how to quantify the individual, subjective experience of "difficulty" as experienced by each individual human. Scientists and philosophers are eagerly awaiting your explanation.

If backing these statements is too difficult, you should take it as an indication that you shouldn't be making these statements.



More assertions backed by more assertions.

I assert that whether dating is "hard" is determined by how much one spends on an outfit, and, since women spend more on their outfits, they therefore have it "harder." This is true because I say so and because of my "personal experience." That the "hardness" of dating is solely determined by how much one spends on their outfit is because I say so and my "personal experience." As evidence, I'll post a study that demonstrates women spend more on clothes. If anyone disagrees, I'll call them a "woman-basher."

There's a vast patriarchal social conspiracy against women that makes dating for women "harder" blahblahblahblah I'm a victim. **insert link to feminist college term paper written by a freshmen and posted on a feminist blog**

See how easy that is?



I'm still waiting for someone to do something other than declaring, "Men have it harder, so nanny-nanny-boo!" and then running away.

But seeing as this discussion is now reached eight pages with no one stepping up to the plate with anything other than baseless assertions backed by more baseless assertions and silly pseudo-philosophical blather, I'm going to move on to other more fruitful conversations as this one seems to be following the law of diminishing returns.

My initial suspicious are correct however, and L&D seems to have currently going through the "dark cycle" again. I'll go chill and await the coming of the dawn.

Last word is yours.

Tootles.

</thread>